Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34761 (HP)

MOOL RAJ v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/19543/2025 · 2025-12-11

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19543 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mool Raj …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for adjustment/shifting, on account of zero enrollment, in the present school (as submitted through proper channel and forwarded as per Annexure P-3) against the vacant station in District Mandi as per Government Policy/ instructions contained in Annexure P-4 & P-6, respectively, in a time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Government Policy/ instructions contained in Annexure P-4 & P-6, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 11, 2025 (Sunil)